An Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has awarded $16,500 to an employee who was sexually harassed by her employer’s CEO, but dismissed the claim against the corporate respondent due to incorrect naming of the company in the application.
B.M., a former executive assistant employed for just five days at Shared Work Space in Mississauga, Ont., alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and a poisoned work environment against A.M., founder and CEO.
The tribunal found credible evidence supporting claims that A.M. engaged in unwanted sexual solicitations and created an intolerable work environment, but dismissed claims of reprisal and failure to investigate.
Procedural issues complicate application
The application initially named “Shared Workspace Incorporation” as the corporate respondent. At the default merits hearing, the tribunal identified this as an incorrect corporate name and provided B.M. an option to adjourn to correct it.
However, she elected to proceed solely against A.M. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application against the incorrectly named corporate respondent, determining no entity by that name existed.
Specific incidents detailed
On her first day, B.M. claimed A.M. showed her sexually explicit photos of a co-worker and took her to a private office where he suggested she “get more comfortable,” later asking for a hug, which she declined.
The next day, he took B.M. shopping for clothing intended to accentuate her appearance, asked her to model clothes for him, and later questioned her about deeply personal topics, including whether she had been raped.
On subsequent days, A.M. expressed a desire for a “more personal relationship” and requested a kiss on the cheek, which B.M. again refused.
Tribunal finds sexual harassment and poisoned environment
The tribunal concluded that A.M.’s actions clearly constituted sexual harassment and solicitation. Vice-chair Todgham Cherniak wrote, “(He) engaged in persistent conduct… and knew or ought reasonably to have known his conduct was unwelcome.”
She further held that the cumulative incidents created a poisoned work environment, justifying B.M.’s decision to resign. However, allegations that B.M. faced reprisal for rejecting advances were not upheld, as the tribunal found insufficient evidence linking A.M.’s subsequent behaviour to her rejection.
Award rationale
B.M. sought increased compensation post-hearing but was limited to $16,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, consistent with the original application. The award included compensation for the time worked and severance pay. The tribunal noted the harassment was “mostly passive” without physical contact, placing it on the less severe end of harassment cases previously adjudicated.
Claims for lost wages and future compliance remedies were denied, primarily because the application against the corporate respondent had been dismissed due to naming errors.
For more information, see More v. Shared Workspace Incorporation, 2025 HRTO 681 (CanLII).
